QuoteReplyTopic: Enough with The STOOPID Spoofs, Already!! Posted: August 14 2008 at 2:18am

Yeah, I knew that The Blair Witch project was nominated for Razzies but I never knew it won, especially for Heather winning because I thought she pulled off one of the best performances in these types of movies. Anyway, I recently saw Blair Witch and I loved it. Well, I also loved Cloverfield. I love both movie and I can't say which is better. I mean, Bliar Witch was great with critics but kinda polarized by audiences. Here's my review for it (8/10):

I finally saw this film since it came out in 1999 because I was waiting to buy the DVD for a cheap price. Well, I bought it after I saw "Cloverfield," "Diary of the Dead," and "Rec." Fortunately, that didn't ruin the film for me.

This film accomplishes a feat: It shows very little in the film, yet the film is quite scary! Like I said, very little is shown in the film. There is quite little violence and blood in the film and it's best to say everything in the film is left up to the audience's imagination, which I liked.

This film doesn't need creepy make-up effects for monster. It doesn't need violence and gore. It doesn't even need a scary soundtrack. It works the way it is. The performances by the three leads were fantastic and realistic.

Apart from it being a scary film and the true definition of a horror film, I thought the humor in the film was funny. You know, the jokes. This movie is like terror unfolding. It doesn't seem scary at first but the film slowly and expertly raises the tension and scares within each scene.

Overall, this is what I think horror films should be. It successfully scared me without showing me anything at all, which is pretty amazing, in my opinion. It doesn't need high quality special effects for some scares and it didn't need a big budget. This film is a must see if you like horror movies.

here's my review for Cloverfield (also an 8/10):

With an ingenious trailer from J.J. Abrams himself, along with clever marketing, all of us can assume that the film may not be as good as the trailer and marketing. Well, we were wrong. Not only is the film as clever as the trailer, it's also a lot of fun! It's nice to see a great film in January, don't you agree?

If you are still in doubt of seeing the film, let me continue on my review. Here's my take on the whole handy cam: Using this in the film makes it feel so realistic. During the action scenes, you feel like you're really there! I know a lot of people said this before but it really does! My only complaint is that it's sometimes annoying when the whole camera shakes around. Some might get stomach cramps.

As for the production values, they are really well done. The visual effects are amazing. The action scenes are unbelievable. What else can I say? If you're worried about not seeing the monster, don't. You'll see it. You'll see it up close. And I thought I would never say this but I really like the character development! I would never though character development could take place in a handy cam.

I'm also surprised to say, when we feel like we're there, that I actually felt scared. I had chills in my spine when something bad is happening. I laughed when characters popped up jokes. I felt sad when characters died. Also, there's no origin to this story, if you're looking for it. The performances by the unknown cast is above average. The most notable, is Lizzy Caplan, all the way.

It's just a big monster movie! So, the film is entertaining, funny, sad, scary, heart-pulsing...The handy cam was a great idea and the action great! What else would you want from a monster movie? This is the movie to see this week! Watch it now!

Oh, and [Rec] (which I explained in the Mirrors thread) is THE BEST POV camera type film. If you haven't seen it, watch that NOW! Oh, and the worst POV camera movie I've seen so far is Diary of the Dead. Now that was a horrible film with bad performances.

Did Friedberg and Seltzer create Disaster Movie so they would have two shots at Worst Picture and Worst Remake or Ripoff? Meet the Spartans might be shut out from Worst Picture by Meet Dave, The Love Guru, The Hottie and the Nottie, and Postal -- but it still has a chance of getting nominated.

I don't understand why these guys feel the need to focus their film's outline on a single flick like 300, it's not as if they will let it limit their parodying to the elements of that film alone (as we can see in the teasers).

What's really distressing about these films is the amount who are likely to go see it. Hollywood comedy of this ilk has been crippled so badly in recent years I fear future generations won't be willing to give truly humorous films like Naked Gun and Airplane! a chance because of the severely awful frequency with which these films are appearing, ergo ruining the reputation for these kinds of movies. And there will of course be an unjustly large audience for this film because of the existence of far too many people who have concluded two things:

Pop culture references = comedy

The quantity of attempts at humor in the film are of greater importance than the quality of said efforts.

It's sad really, to see cleverness and wit forsaken in favor of the lowest common denominator style we are witnessing dominate films such as this one. It's maddening to see that this is the result of the American publics choices in movies to pay and go see. As much as I would like to pin the blame on on another source, the people at fault for this one are our nation's moviegoers. They have demanded, and the market has delivered.

I don't understand why these guys feel the need to focus their film's outline on a single flick like 300, it's not as if they will let it limit their parodying to the elements of that film alone (as we can see in the teasers).

What's really distressing about these films is the amount who are likely to go see it. Hollywood comedy of this ilk has been crippled so badly in recent years I fear future generations won't be willing to give truly humorous films like Naked Gun and Airplane! a chance because of the severely awful frequency with which these films are appearing, ergo ruining the reputation for these kinds of movies. And there will of course be an unjustly large audience for this film because of the existence of far too many people who have concluded two things:

Pop culture references = comedy

The quantity of attempts at humor in the film are of greater importance than the quality of said efforts.

It's sad really, to see cleverness and wit forsaken in favor of the lowest common denominator style we are witnessing dominate films such as this one. It's maddening to see that this is the result of the American publics choices in movies to pay and go see. As much as I would like to pin the blame on on another source, the people at fault for this one are our nation's moviegoers. They have demanded, and the market has delivered.

Shut up, doofus.

Actually, that paragraph speaks the truth about what is wrong with Seltzerberg's movies. But I'm a little confused; is moat telling himself to shut up?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum